Vallejo City Council to consider disputed cell tower

The Vallejo City Council on Tuesday will consider a proposed cell tower at a north Vallejo shopping center that was delayed last year due to neighborhood concerns about aesthetics and radio waves.

The delay has resulted in a revised design as well as a lawsuit against the city by project proponent AT&T Mobility. The civil complaint alleges the city broke federal regulations regarding the speed at which telecommunication projects must be processed.

The city denies the allegation and the lawsuit is pending.

The issue concerns a proposed cell tower at the Rancho Square Shopping Plaza at 5201 Sonoma Blvd. AT&T proposed the project in December 2012 to boost its wireless coverage in that area.

The original design called for an 80-foot monopole enclosed with a chain-link fence. The revised proposal, however, reduces the height to 70 feet and uses a faux "eucalyptus tree" design.

Also, the proposed tower site has been moved to the rear of the plaza, behind the Cost Rite Furniture store near Rinaldo and Danrose drives. According to the city, the revised plan calls for landscaping to screen the tower's equipment cabinet from residents living behind the center.

Despite these changes, some residents and business owners still think the tower would be an eyesore. Opponents also claim prolonged exposure to the tower's emissions might contribute to cancer, but city and AT&T officials have dismissed those concerns.

"There are other feasible sites in this part of Vallejo," said Margaret Hicks, a leading opponent, who is the property manager for businesses next to the furniture store. "But even if AT&T insists on building the tower at Rancho Square, they could place it inside a marquee at the front of the ... shopping center (along Highway 29). That way the antenna would be far enough away from the homes behind Rancho Square that it wouldn't present a health danger or lower property values."

AT&T will rent the space for the tower from the owner of the furniture store building, Global Capital Management Corporation, based in Burlingame.

"I wouldn't allow that cell tower behind my property, no matter how much rent AT&T paid me," Hicks said. "Because I am concerned for the health of the people in those businesses."

City officials said a public notice was sent out last month to property owners within within 200 feet of the project site. Lucy Marte, co-owner of the Japan Store, however, said many tenants who rent space at the plaza may be unaware of the project. Marte, who objects to the tower because she thinks it might lower property values, said she learned about the issue from Hicks.

The city denied the original project in April 2013, finding that the tower would impose a "significant visual impact" on neighboring homes and businesses. AT&T appealed to the planning commission, which upheld the denial but asked the city to work with the applicant on a revised plan.

Meanwhile, AT&T served the city with a civil lawsuit in June 2013, alleging violations of Federal Communications Commission rules requiring local governments to act on cell-tower applications within 150 days. The lawsuit further alleges the city is impermissibly preventing AT&T from providing wireless service, which would be a violation of federal law.

The city has denied the allegations.

"Public opposition is our only recourse," Hicks said. "I really hope the people who live in this area find out about the issue and come to voice their views."